The funniest story in the stack is an item reporting that Glendale did not even recoup what it spent as host "city" for the Super Bowl. For years ahead of the spectacle, Phoenix media reported what an economic boon it would be. This is a classic example about how critical thinking is neither taught nor valued in today's newsrooms (gee, why do we keep losing readers?).
A basic analysis of the hype would have shown that the promised economic benefits would be modest. It happened during high season, so resorts and hotels would already be booked. Indeed, considering the NFL demands blocks of rooms at a discount, the hotel industry probably made less money than it would have otherwise. Sales of souvenirs? Most of the profit goes back to the NFL. Restaurants would have similarly been packed anyway. And so on.
It's not that the Super Bowl doesn't bring benefits, in terms of exposure and the gathering of big deal makers. Too bad it took place in an amorphous place without an identity and a stadium in a cotton field on the metro fringe, in a place with little economy besides the great -- now shuttered -- housing factory. But the media shouldn't have bought into the economic hype. Alas, the pressure is always extreme to "say something positive." Unfortunately, many reporters today would never even have applied the basic bullshit detector that was once a standard-issue item in their craft.
Read on for more of the Stack.
--This week we will be treated to much respectful media coverage of John McCain's promised speeches on global warming. They will tell you he is a "maverick" and, as Murdoch's Wall Street Journal wrote, "Sen. McCain's support of regulating global-warming gases like carbon dioxide -- the biggest environmental issue before Congress -- more closely resembles the stance of his Democratic rivals."
Here are some facts you need to know about the senator "from Arizona": he wants to kill intercity passenger rail, the most important step we could be taking now to reduce greenhouse gases and preparing for a high-energy future; he did nothing to prevent the destruction of wild Arizona that is so exemplified by Prescott Valley and the runaway development on the Mogollon Rim; the League of Conservation Voters rank him last among his colleagues on his environmental voting record, and he was totally disengaged from the discussion about how global warming would disastrously affect his "home" state. Beyond all this, the money he will need to destroy Barack Obama will come from the corporate barons who oppose serious efforts to address the issue. Cynicism is high: most "conservatives" know global warming is real. They just believe we will "adapt": in other words, rich people will do all right, and devil take the hindmost. Gee, why do they trash Darwin all the time?
-- Arizona and Utah officials "reached out" to polygamists in a recent meeting, promising them that the two states won't copy Texas aggressive tactics. Here again we see the quiet, vast power of the Mormon Church on display. It would be death for any politician in these or some other Western states to go all-out against this cult which -- Big Love notwithstanding -- always depends on coercing young girls into child-bearing pseudo-slavery and banishing young boys who would compete with the older predators, er, men in the "community." It's not that the mainstream LDS "endorses" polygamy. It just doesn't want it discussed, period, and mainstream Mormons often have family ties with the polygamists. One of the great un-written stories of the West is how the LDS uses its money and power.
-- An interesting dust-up has consigned Arizona State Sen. Karen Johnson to the nut bin for daring to ask questions about 9/11. (Read her Republic op-ed here). I always thought Johnson was a kook, but because of her radical positions to starve education funding, subsidize sprawl, paralyze infrastructure efforts and do nothing to protect the environment (in other words, she was a mainstream East Valley Republican). She was also the receptionist for the late Gov. Ev Mecham. But in this case, Johnson is not out of bounds. Many questions do remain about what happened that day. The roadblocks, censorship and unanswered questions faced by the 9/11 Commission are mainstream evidence. And the intense secrecy of the Bush administration has only fed conspiracy theories.
--Don't miss Paul Krugman's piece today on oil prices and speculators. As I have written for several years, oil prices may go down, but the fundamentals point to an inexorable long-term rise in prices. Our policies are totally out of step with this reality. There's just a lot of dreaming about alternatives that are either unrealistic, or won't provide the same cheap energy as the abundant light sweet crude of the 20th century. The Oil Drum has a fine article today on why oil shale is not going to save suburbia as currently configured.
-- For journos and people who love newspapers, my favorite quote of the day:
I’ve always mistrusted that phrase “the reader wants”, because how do we know exactly what the reader wants? I think you should give the reader a fresh and original paper that’s very well-written and covers all sorts of things — social trends, fashion, the works -- but I think you are at your best when you give the reader something the reader wants that the reader didn’t know he or she wanted it till you gave it to her.
This from an interview in the Indian Express with former NYT Executive Editor Joe Lelyveld.
Resource depletion I think is another of the most un-reported stories in the West. There is no one asking the question of what $7-$8 gasoline will do to the Phoenix economy. No one. The base of our economy is gas-guzzling sprawl. Arizona's top employer is Wal-Mart - I wonder what two consecutive quarters of $10 diesel will do to the 3,000 mile traveled baggies of Caesar Salad? The entire structure of that organization could become absolute if Goldman Sachs' oil forecast is correct.
Our economic development strategy is spending $1 Billion on a mega-sized convention center and accompanying hotel. Has anyone noticed that the airlines are in serious trouble? Was betting the farm on "business tourism" a good idea when that activity doesn't exist without cheap airfare?
Posted by: Curt | May 12, 2008 at 12:06 PM
The funniest (or most outrageous) comment about Glendale losing money on the Super Bowl:
"You can look at it from getting the actual dollar back," Councilman David Goulet said. "But I think there is a bigger picture to look at than just the pure law of numbers."
Posted by: kb | May 12, 2008 at 06:20 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with Sen. Johnson's concerns re 9/11, and thanks for highlighting her questions. Yes, she's generally a pill, but no one has satisfied the questions she's raising in her op-ed - though I suspect The Republic only accepted it because she's a "known kook." "Serious" people are keeping their mouths shut.
Oh and, right on, commenter Curt...
Posted by: Petro | May 12, 2008 at 09:57 PM
To Curt's comment, I would add that inevitable advances in telecommunications technology will exacerbate the economics of business travel for the Phoenix area. In other words, not only will energy cost increases decrease the demand for business travel, but making virtual/video teleconferences easily and cheaply available will further decrease that demand.
This will follow the course of customer service phone centers getting outsourced to India or the Phillipines, which was made economically attractive because of easily available, low cost telephone service to and from those countries.
Posted by: Steve | May 12, 2008 at 11:43 PM
I'd love to think that telecommunications advances, particularly video conferencing, would begin to lessen the demand for business travel but we've been hearing that promise for twenty years. Business travel is usually more than the one-on-one meetings that telecom technology can most easily address. Conventions, trade shows, expositions, all require in-person presence. That having been said, business travel will almost certainly decline due to the costs of travel.
Posted by: Don Gardner | May 13, 2008 at 08:58 AM